nesdev.org

Sogona wrote:Is it true that "Les États Unis" doesn't necessarily refer to the USA?

No, "Les États Unis (d'Amérique)" = The United States (of America).

Is it common to need to refer to something or someone "from the Americas"? There are already "North American", "Central American", and "South American" to refer to continents and subcontinents.

tepples wrote:Is it common to need to refer to something or someone "from the Americas"?

The only example I can think of is to say "Native Americans". It may be fitting in context to refer collectively to the indigenous peoples of the American continents in contrast to European settlers. When I hear "Native American", I don't exclusively think of North American tribes; I also think of Incas and Mayans.

dougeff wrote:

And Québec is probably the place in the world where france is most hated

I thought it was the other way around. I've heard that French people find the Québec accent especially... bad.

Well, Parisians have the reputation of being jerks but that is almost universally accepted, even within France itself (I've talked to many French people and they all confirmed this). Otherwise, the relation is good, people from Quebec like people from France and vice versa.

I'd say the biggest problem with the word Usanian is that it makes me think they're aliens =D

tepples wrote:Is it common to need to refer to something or someone "from the Americas"? There are already "North American", "Central American", and "South American" to refer to continents and subcontinents.

To be fair, not even that. I mean, people usually say Latin America instead of South and Central America (and also includes Mexico) because as far as culture goes, that tends to be a tad more relevant in terms of grouping.

Why isn't Quebec considered part of Latin America? French comes from Latin as much as Portuguese and Spanish do.

tepples wrote:Why isn't Quebec considered part of Latin America? French comes from Latin as much as Portuguese and Spanish do.

According to some definitions, it is. Probably it is excluded because it is enclaved in non-Latin america.French speaking isles in the Carabeian and French Guyana are definitely considered part of Lain America.

Well, Parisians have the reputation of being jerks but that is almost universally accepted, even within France itself

Definitely.
I'll also add that within French Speaking Switzerland, Geneva has a similar reputation to Paris'. (It is just logical that the most populated city gets the higher number of jerks, in absolute value.)

Ask any canadian if they're "american" and they'll tell you no. Generally speaking, "american" is not used to refer to people from any part of the Americas. It only refers to the United States of America, in any English context I'm aware of.

Same here in French - "Americain" almost unambigiously refers something or someone from the USA. People who don't like the country (including myself) aren't too happy about that - but there's nothing we can do about it.. However "Amérique" is *not* used to unambigiously refer to the USA.

tepples wrote:Why isn't Quebec considered part of Latin America? French comes from Latin as much as Portuguese and Spanish do.

Yeah it's kind of a misnomer, Latin America is defined more by culture than by language.

Once again, actual definitions of words are separate from their etymology. "Latin America" was a term that originated because it was useful to speak of the collection of French/Spanish/Portuguese/etc. colonies as a group, because of relevant political alignments (which is also why Quebec is excluded). Over time it continues to refer to roughly the same places, but its definition isn't dependent on the languages really: the point was (and still is) to group a particular region, because it's a useful group to speak of for whatever reason. Mostly these reasons are political.

darryl.revok wrote:
What are we supposed to call ourselves? I really don't know!

Here's my opinion, albeit very simplistic.

Why? Because sometimes the best answer to a seemingly complex problem can be very simple.

We should call ourselves humans. That's what we all are. In different shapes, colors, forms etc. We are all of the same race, sharing a common ancestor. We share the same overall structure and we are all looking for the same answer to the all important question: why are we here; how did we get here originally?

Well, you might say, yeah, duh! But even though this is a "duh" answer, it's often forgotten or overlooked for various reasons. Having a separate name for "us" puts a division between us and other nations. But for what? Yes, it defines us historically and separates us giving us a unique identity and quality. It's our human nature to want to have pride and be the dominant of our kind. To have clicks and be with others most like us (even within the same species). But really all a name does is divides us in the end, for better or worse.

I think society today worries about the wrong or minute things and I notice a trend of behavior today on the internet to want and create labels for everything: sexism, altruism, etc.

In my opinion, we should focus on things such as world peace (very unlikely to happen unless we evolve drastically over the next few hundred years), ending world hunger, trying to find other life forms out there (then I'd say this would be a worthy division), finding anwsers through science such as how we got here and why we are here.

Life is the most amazing thing in the universe, it should be like a gift every day we get up. I believe we are responsible for creating our own purpose and destiny to some extent. But people create unnecessary burdens turning this gift into poverty and nightmare. People make it hard.

But, again, that's my answer and my opinion: human. --ShaneM

What, are you telling me that darryl.revok is the one who's decided to set up different countries and segregate the world? Half of that comes from communication barriers that have existed forever and are only now being lessened due to things like telephones and the internet. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more people know English (pretty much the universal language, so it's almost required if you're communicating around the world) now than 100 years ago.

Anyway, I don't think he was looking for a philosophical answer.

I'd say American. I swear, "Miss South Carolina" is dumber than a box of rocks. She's not helping the reputation for blondes. That interviewer is just barely holding it together...

ShaneM wrote:Having a separate name for "us" puts a division between us and other nations. But for what?

For the people with big firearms not to shoot us when attempting to cross a border. Under current law, international borders are the major constraint on a free adult's right to travel.

Hehehe you guys!

ShaneM: I feel ya. I definitely don't think we should take our political institutions as a basis for our personal identities, or judge the character of another person on the political institutions by which they are ruled. However, a lack of terminology can severely hinder my ability to make jokes on online forums.

On that note, I'm gonna go find my lady and give her a big ol' freedom kiss.

ShaneM wrote: We should call ourselves humans. That's what we all are.

I'd go one step further out and say we should call ourselves persons.

ShaneM wrote:sometimes the best answer to a seemingly complex problem can be very simple.

We should call ourselves humans. That's what we all are. In different shapes, colors, forms etc.

And different legal rights as to which land we can lawfully visit. Humans with lethal weapons enforce closed borders on other humans.